This reminds me of perhaps my very favorite Saint Greenspan moment: his solemn admonition to Congress that if we didn’t pass a massive package of upper-class tax cuts we’d…pay down the national debt too quickly. Yes, what a plausible scenario that was, and how awful it would have been if in the worst-case scenario we could have taken the massive amounts of money we’re wasting on interest payments and used it for tax cuts or needed government programs…
John McCain’s makeup team.
I’m serious. Friday’s debate will be the first time a lot of people, and especially a lot of potential swing voters, will have seen him in HDTV for a sustained period. I got HD about a year ago, and if you don’t have it believe me it makes a very real difference in terms of how people look on TV. Almost everybody looks bad under TV lights anyway prior to cosmetic intervention, but the following groups are especially vulnerable to the merciless eye of the HD digital broadcast:
(1) White people, because of generally less even skin tone (this is another of the many HUGELY UNFAIR ADVANTAGES for people of color in our culture).
(2) Old people.
(3) People with facial disfigurements such as surgical scars.
You can’t just trowel on the coverup either, because then you’ll make an old white guy with a big scar look like a zombie.
Democratic challenger Bruce Lunsford has closed to within a statistical tie with Republican incumbent Mitch McConnell in their U.S. Senate race, according to a new poll by SurveyUSA released Tuesday.
With six weeks remaining until election day, McConnell, the Senate minority leader, now holds a 49%-46% lead over Lunsford, which is within the poll’s 3.9% margin of error. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released six weeks ago, Lunsford is up six points, McConnell is down three.
I’m tentatively scheduled to have a conversation on foreign and security policy with Bruce Lunsford for LGM in a couple weeks; will keep you updated.
Josh Marshall notes that Max Boot is “a key advisor and campaign surrogate” for John McCain, which I suppose means that Victor Davis Hanson’s vote has been secured at last. Meantime, Marshall is wondering about all the “completely insane things” Boot has said or written over the years. Since I don’t know what Boot ordered for breakfast yesterday, I’m prepared to say that the answer to Marshall’s question is not necessarily “Everything.”
I would, however, suggest that Boot’s call for the US to arm Stalinist militias in Iran would probably qualify as talking-to-the-squirrels crazy.
. . . this, while qualifying as generic, jingoistic cheerleading, is also self-evidently mad:
Once Afghanistan has been dealt with, America should turn its attention to Iraq. It will probably not be possible to remove Saddam quickly without a U.S. invasion and occupation–though it will hardly require half a million men, since Saddam’s army is much diminished since the Gulf War, and we will probably have plenty of help from Iraqis, once they trust that we intend to finish the job this time. Once we have deposed Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul. With American seriousness and credibility thus restored, we will enjoy fruitful cooperation from the region’s many opportunists, who will show a newfound eagerness to be helpful in our larger task of rolling up the international terror network that threatens us.
…and this isn’t insane so much as it supplies additional weight to the argument that “conservative humor” is mere legend, like the chupacabra, the unicorn, or “Hillary Supporters for McCain.”
I agree that as long as the plan that passes is acceptable, the fact that Republicans will run against Dems for passing it isn’t a big deal. (Just as they shouldn’t even consider Bush’s “give me $700 billion to arbitrarily dispense” plan irrespective of the politics.) The additional thing to add is that if the election is focused on the economy McCain is going to get massacred, so if this is the big Republican strategy I’m not exactly cowering in terror.
Bush’s approval rating has sunk to 19% in the latest ARG poll. That’s lower than Nixon’s the week he resigned. Probably the most telling stat in the breakdown is that Dubya has an 8% approval rating among self-described independents. Basically every Democrat and almost every independent voter in the country hates him. His remaining support consists of slightly more than half the GOP, and Joe Lieberman.
As Matt Stoller points out, you could probably impeach him and nobody would notice.
So the question becomes, is Bush sufficiently weakened for the Democratic leadership in Congress to tell him thanks, but we’ll be drafting any bailout legislation we consider necessary, and you’ll be signing it? After all there are about five GOP senators that are no position to be backing the president on anything if they want to live to fight another day.
This is what LBJ used to refer to as “nut-cutting time.” Somebody needs to remind Pelosi and Reid and the rest of them just who has the knife now.
There was a lot that I didn’t have time or space to explore with respect to Palin’s environmental record, but I did come across one interesting detail connected to the state’s recent polar bear lawsuit. Among the several pro-development/free market groups that have joined Palin’s efforts to block the polar bear listing, we find the Pacific Legal Foundation, a renowned right-wing legal firm founded in California during the early 1970s with money from the Scaife Foundation. Among its other accomplishments, the PLF rebooted its sagging fortunes in the early 1990s by accepting a massive wad of financial assistance from Phillip Morris, which paid the firm to help make the case that the EPA had been wrong to rule that tobacco smoke was a carcinogen. More recently, the PLF has been waging a non-stop campaign to dismantle affirmative action; among other things, they were heavily involved in the Seattle and Louisville integration cases.
In Alaska, the PLF led the campaign five years ago on behalf of Robert Hale — otherwise known as “Papa Pilgrim” — who wanted to plow a road into Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, where his family of 17 lived on old mining land. Hale lost every round, but the case wound its way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately refused to hear an appeal on Hale’s behalf. Meantime, Hale had been been sentenced to fourteen years in prison for incest and sexual assault; he croaked in prison earlier this year.
Opposition to the California Proposition seeking to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry and restore them to second-class citizenship continues to grow, with 55% planning to vote no and just 38% support (a very bad position for an initiative.) [HT: Roger Ailes.] Why, I’m beginning to wonder if predictions that the California courts will hand the state to McCain may not pan out!
I’ve long wondered how opponents of same-sex marriage will manage to portray a grant of rights favored by California’s elected legislature, its elected governor, and its
tyrants in black robes elected courts, and the public in a referendum will be portrayed as “undemocratic.” The answer, based on the article, seems to be that it will entail whining about the description of the initiative’s purpose in the summary language: Brown wanted an accurate description, while supporters wanted a vague one. It is true, of course, that the wording of initiatives and their summaries can affect vote totals. But, of course, this is true of any initiative; and precisely for this reason an initiative isn’t some completely accurate measure of a transcendent Popular Will. And this includes the initiative that created the unconstitutional same-sex marriage ban in the first place. The current status quo and the wording of an initiative matter; it’s just these background factors are considered natural when they support traditional exclusionary policies.
The almost certain failure of Prop 8 further suggests that claims that the California courts will instigate a backlash because they overturned the “popular will” remain highly questionable. The “popular will” isn’t static and there’s no entirely reliable way of measuring it, but if Prop 8 supporters want to complain about that remember that it’s equally applicable of initiatives they previously supported too.
Look, if Republicans want to go to the mat for executives who think that they deserve multi-million dollar payouts for running venerable, profitable companies completely into the ground — “It’s the unassailable product of the Free Market! Now how about that $700 billion in taxpayer money to buy our worthless assets? Gimme Gimme Gimme!” — by all means let them. I know what side I want to be on politically…
In addition, conditional restrictions on executive pay aren’t simply about punishing inept executives who get massive compensation based on an insulated, mutual-backscratching system largely insulated from market forces. Rather, the most important problem with a bailout — even if there’s a plan that, unlike the one Paulson wants, is defensible — is the moral hazard problem. Setting a precedent that, if your firm is big enough, you can expect profits to be yours but major losses to be public is obviously problematic. If executives have to worry that coming to the government Tiffany cup and ivory backscratcher in hand will cost them their golden parachutes, it provides some incentives to act more responsibly.
RFS Pyotr Velikiy and his (my understanding is that Russians use the masculine in reference to naval vessels, but if anyone has clarification, please don’t hesitate) entourage set sail for Venezuela yesterday. Let’s hope he doesn’t break down along the way, as he did in exercises near Iceland, and in the exercises that resulted in the loss of Kursk. In other news, Russia is stepping up aid offers to Bolivia.
On this latter, am I wrong in thinking of this as a clumsy Russian effort to threaten the backyard of the United States, just as the United States can threaten the backyard of Russia? I have a longer post on this subject in the works, but I guess that I just don’t quite understand this effort; the United States can do things in the near abroad that actually threaten Russia (rebuilding the Georgian military, pressing for Georgian/Ukranian entry to NATO, building bigger and better missile shields, etc.) while Russia can do things in Latin America that mildly annoy the United States. While the Russians may expect these mild annoyances to deter the United States (Vladimir Irvingovitch Kristol whispering in Putin’s ear, perhaps?), I find it much more likely that the US will overreact and respond with more threatening behavior towards Russia, including those things that the Russians are trying to deter us from doing. Thoughts?